Humans need not apply - the case for the universal basic income

[The Grand Nudger]

Prices are set by what people are willing to pay in the market, not what something cost to make.

That's the line that a certain ideology takes, and it works in niche cases with food (more appropriately, "luxury food" - the kind of stuff that small producers like myself are forced into) but it's not even remotely a factor in the production of staple crops.

A few years ago GM was selling cars for less than they cost to make. Why? Because the market wouldn't support prices that covered their costs. GM would sell cars for one billion times the cost of production if the market would support it.

Happens all the time with food - that's the point of subsidies. The subsidies are, in many cases, what makes production even cross the line into profit for some producers.

Dirt cheap to make just means it is dirt cheap to make. It doesn't mean it is dirt cheap to buy.

That's exactly what it means with food, and in large part because that's how we want it to be. There is -no- scenario in which a $40 dollar potato fits in with the type of production required to feed a nation, even if people would hit each other over the head with a shovel to be the next in line to buy it (and precisely because of the same).

Aspirin is dirt cheap to make and you don't see wild gyrations in the supply or price of aspirin.

That might have something to do with aspirin, don't you think? Aspirin is very stable. Makes it easy to withstand a slump. Cars, also very stable. Tell you what, when you find me a head of lettuce that can last as long as a bottle of aspirin or a new GM - you just give me a call. Until you understand the product your opinions are going to end up as my jokes. We did and still do see wild fluctuations in the price of staple crops, we don't feel them - because of subsidies. Combine the risk factors of the products reigning model (drought, disease, disruptive weather) and it;s a double whammy. Meat costs alot more this year than it did last year, all because of some bad weather. But you just go ahead and pretend we don;t see wild fluctuations in food because a bottle of aspirin still costs the same as it did last year, and GM decided to take a hit to keep the doors open.

It's a shitty situation to be in (but only if you view it in an exceedingly myopic way - those subsidies, after all, are benefiting business and feeding people simultaneously, so thats nice), but that's where we are. Production depends now on scale, and a major factor for profitability of any given production model is whether or not it qualifies for subsidy, and to what extent. That's why Mom and Pops is out, and FoodCorp Inc. is in. This flows all the way down the chain, of course. Walmart lists changes to subsidies and welfare programs as a major factor in -their- profitability. They triple dip. The subsidies to producers allow them to source their products in an exceedingly one-sided manner (try to negotiate with these fuckers sometime, just for kicks) ...and then, they subsidize their labor with the welfare their workers inevitably receive. Icing on top, the workers spend their welfare checks Walmart. Tell me that's not good for business, go ahead. It's almost as if you thought the subsidies did nothing, or :gasp: you didn't even care to look into it before you opened your mouth.